On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:42:52PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Valerie Aurora Henson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:57:42PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >> On Nov 11, 2008 19:43 -0800, Valerie Aurora Henson wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c b/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c
> >>> index 7235f7d..71ad445 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c
> >>> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_allocate_group_table(ext2_filsys fs, dgrp_t group,
> >>> - int prev_block = 0;
> >>> + blk64_t prev_block = 0;
> >>> @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_allocate_group_table(ext2_filsys fs, dgrp_t group,
> >>> if (flexbg_size) {
> >>> - int prev_block = 0;
> >>> + blk64_t prev_block = 0;
> >> These appear to be defects in the base code and should be landed ASAP
> >> (as int -> blk_t) independently of this patch series.
> >
> > Agreed. Ted, is this a good format for you or do you want me to
> > regenerate against something?
>
> Is it?
>
> if (flexbg_size) {
> int prev_block = 0;
> if (group && fs->group_desc[group-1].bg_block_bitmap)
> prev_block =
> fs->group_desc[group-1].bg_block_bitmap;
> start_blk = flexbg_offset(fs, group, prev_block, bmap,
> 0, rem_grps, 1);
> last_blk = ext2fs_group_last_block(fs, last_grp);
> }
>
> bg_block_bitmap is only a __u32, and that's what we assign to prev_block.
It's a signed/unsigned bug (int vs. blk_t) - it shows up at > 2^31
blocks.
> Just a quick scan, but isn't this just a relative block in the group?
I double-checked and it's relative to the beginning of the file system.
-VAL
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
